Tory members want George Osborne to prioritise extra defence spending

65% of the 1,519 Conservative Party members who took part in the April survey of ConservativeHome readers said that defence was deserving of a higher proportion of public spending. In contrast only 30% want education and 22% wanted health to receive a bigger share of public funding. Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox welcomed the findings:

"This is entirely in line with the Conservative instinct that defence of our people must be the number one priority for government. It's also true that the current Government doesn't understand that."

We also gave respondents the opportunity to identify other areas where government spending might be increased. Housing and border security were the most frequently mentioned additional causes. Other causes included: support for the family, prison-building, investment in renewable and nuclear energy, fairness for rural Britain and international emergency disaster relief.

Shadow Chancellor George Osborne recently announced a tough process for confirming any increases in public spending. At the beginning of March he made it clear that "no policy proposals with implications for public spending are Conservative Party policy until they have been approved by me and by David Cameron, passed by the Shadow Cabinet, and appear in our draft manifesto."

Of course there should be a massive increase in defence spending. An increase in the Royal Navy's budget should be the next Conservative government's top priority. What the Labour Government has done, and plans to do, to the once-proud Royal Navy is absolutely appalling. To go from having the second-largest fleet in the world to a navy comparable in size to that of Indonesia, Belgium, and Turkey -- in only forty years' time -- is shocking. Such a debilitated navy invites upstart, rogue nations (i.e. North Korea, Iran, Argentina, Syria, Venezuela, etc.) to enter into very real, very bloody, conventional conflicts with the UK in order to score propaganda points in the court of world opinion. Does the current Labour Government really believe that Britain will never again fight another conventional war? If so, that's insanity.

I think Defence Spending should be doubled at the very least relative to GDP; not just conventional forces, but also nuclear forces and issues of pay for Defence staff especially those on active service needs to be raised significantly.

The UK needs a truly independent deterrent including any launch system, R&D into new weapons systems including ideas such as the Hafnium Device are also important.

A lot of recent operations have involved extensive policing and so paramilitary units of the police need to be built up more and army police units.

We all know that health and education are vital. I work in the voluntary sector, spending all my time with health and education charities. Schools and hospitals have seen an immense growth in public expenditure under this government. We have not seen a commensurate increase in overall quality and availability of services. Spending the existing money better must be the top priority for an incoming administration. Of course Conservatives are also committed to ensuring that expenditure increases as well.

Defence is different. Extraordinary demands have been made on our armed services. We have not seen a commensurate increase in spending. The balance needs to be redressed urgently.

I am astonished that you or anyone could believe that Britain faces no threat at present or be content to base Defence policy on the assumption that will remain the case.

Comstock, perhaps I shouldn't be suprised that a Labour supporter can see no threats currently, after all the Labour party did vote to abolish the RAF in 1937 when of course there was no threat then was there?
A few points you might like to consider, the need to protect our energy security,the increased aggression of Russia and the small and insignificant matter of Iran and Islamic terrorism.
I suppose we either (a) continue to ask our forces to undertake tasks which are beyond their capability or (b)stick our heads in the sand.

Health, Education and Crime must be our priorities as they are the priorites of the people. If we start going on about how many more missles, guns and tanks we are going to buy once elected people will sstart to think we are going to pay for this by cutting health and education. Go down this path and you will not be spending money on anything because you will not get elected.
One thing we should priorities about defence is spending money getting service people and there families decent accomadation. It is outrageous and a national scandal that there as been nearly two hundred thousand complaints in the last year from forces families about there accomadation.
Personally I would like to see a minister of cabinet level appointed as a Veterans Minister to look afetr the welfare of servicemen and there families both past and present.Its about time that this country valued those more who are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for there country.

Some very healthy conservative views expressed in this thread, pace Comstock.
Whether George Osborne would commit to the necessary increase in expenditure is quite another matter. Following Oliver Letwin's utter drivel over the last few days it's evident that the Shadow Cabinet is more interested in how society lives rather than its protection from the many threats we face.

Currently, spending on health and education runs at about 7 times the level of spending on defence. It is surely reasonable to push up defence spending a bit, as current levels of spending don't enable the armed forces to meet the demands on them.

Usual right-wing views from the unrepresentative minority that is ConHome's readership. No doubt someone will pop up in a minute and call them and Liam Fox "sound". Hopefully the leadership realises that the Cold War is over and that domestic affairs - health, education, etc. - are far more important.

Overall the priorities should be health, education and crime. My canvassing indicated these three were by a very large degree the main issues. However in these cases and in the case of defence we have to be much more innovative about the best ways to spend money for optimum outcome. Regarding defence there has been money wasted on the wrong things and a decent sized well equipped army is a key priority given the rise of assymetrical type issues in different parts of the world. The ability to get that army to any corner of the world is also key (Could the Falklands war be achieved again?). Turning to health, here too just pumping money in is not the best use of resources. We need to ensure we have a well motivated staff, partcularly nurses and especially we need to use resources to enusre less people need hospitals in the firts place and that diseases are managed to reduce later more costly interventions. Measures like the ban on smoking in public places are interesting developments and maybe we should examine what measures can be used to improve the health of the public although preferably by use of carrot more than stick. We need to be really innovative on policy,

You are absolutely right William. I stand as always corrected.I've also been corrected about the attitude of some who claim to be Conservatives. I'd always believed that the Conservative party stood for the strong defence of our country and that we as a party had learned from the mistakes of Baldwin/Chamberlain. I'm delighted that Jack Stone (predictably) and someone who courageously calls himself/herself 'Margeret on the Guillotine' have educated me otherwise.

The "target" should not be to push up defence spending just for the sake of it. This is Labours approach - and a fundamentally flawed one.

We need to spend enough to guarantee we can carry out an independent foreign policy and secure ourselves against all manner of threats in the medium term.

To this end, I would suggest;

Navy: 35-40 Surface escorts are needed (not
25), JSF aircraft must be in place before the harriers are withdrawn & we must have sufficient amphibious assualt ships for a medium-sized operation (I'd say 3/4 rather than the 2 we have at present)

Army: Severely undermanned - should be around 125,000 strong rather than 99-101K strong. New APCs rather than landrovers. We must also retain a multi-terrain, multi-role combat ability for all sorts of contingencies.

General: Housing and conditions need to be much improved + tax breaks for serving soldiers overseas. Our overseas bases need to be retained.

KEY: We must maintain an independent ability to mount an independent medium-scale action (30-40K man operation) without the assistance of any other nation (aka Falklands size) we cannot always rely on the US, EU or NATO.

I'd imagine all this would require a defence budget increase of 40% to 50% but it would be to achieve specific goals, rather than an increase in spending "on principle".

We spend too much on Education - far too much for the outputs. In terms of basic literacy, numeracy, speech and verbal reasoning it is a scandlous waste of money on crackpot initiatives and PFI bounty to banks and investor groups.

Schools need Zero-Base Budgeting and to start from first principles as to what their tasks are and what funding is required. Somewhere the system has acquired barnacles and these have been treated as protected species.

In the old days Education included Public Libraries now these are shunted into "Leisure" in Council budgets....it is about time that Libraries and Books and Education were bundled together with Art Galleries and Education had less of the overpriced hype and more substance

I'd imagine all this would require a defence budget increase of 40% to 50% but it would be to achieve specific goals, rather than an increase in spending "on principle".

The Germans have a dire need to replace their 30 year old Sea Stallion helicopters which are breaking down in Afghanistan and lack spares. It would be an idea to build a joint Anglo-German NATO Spares Pool for any new helicopters we procure and train fitters jointly on a bilateral basis

Oh good grief! It’s on threads like this that I want to go and have a beer with Comstock (or perhaps he’d treat me to champagne).

UNICEF shamed us with research that our children are unhappy, neglected and poorly educated. Meanwhile the hawkish CIA say that we are 5th in the world on defence spending -- far behind the USA and China -- similar to France and Japan -- 20% ahead of the next country (Germany).

You can certainly make an argument that we spend our defence money badly, but to say that we’re not spending enough is a confusion of priorities.

Currently, spending on health and education runs at about 7 times the level of spending on defence. It is surely reasonable to push up defence spending a bit, as current levels of spending don't enable the armed forces to meet the demands on them. - Sean Fear

What would be reasonable would be to manage spending more effectively and responsibly across all sectors, including defence.

I may be wrong here, but isn't the largest deployment of British troops overseas currently in Germany? Angela Merkel might have more hawkish inclinations than her predecessor, but I very much doubt the tanks will start rolling into Poland if that drain on British defence spending is redistributed more appropriately...

It's also hard to justify prioritising increased 'defence' spending over investment in public welfare when the likes of Liam Fox are demanding that obscene amounts of public spending be frittered away on the nuclear white elephant that is Trident.

Comstock, considering the Foreign policy implemented by Blair and New Labour over the last 10 years I find this attitude quite quaint from a Labour supporter.
What happened to that "ethical" Foreign policy which has seen situations like Darfur develop despite many hoping that we would do more to prevent another Rwanda?
Our armed forces have been over stretched and under resourced by this government and I expect this to continue under Brown. They are and will continue to be a vital part of our defence both at home and abroad and will also be needed for UN duties and for helping other nations who suffer particularly from natural disasters.
I think some on the left forget that the armed forces are often the first on the scene in natural disasters like the tsunami in the far east a few years ago.

With our armed forces clearly insufficient in numbers, quantities of equipment and standard of equipment it is absolutely clear that more needs to be spent on defence.

The armed forces are crucial to the continued survival of freedom in our country. MotG's tired old "the cold war is over" line is simply lazy thinking. To pretend that the world we live in is a safe one, or even one free of jostling powers, is a fantasy. Nor can anyone predict what will happen in coming years. If you want peace, prepare for war.

That said, we also need to start spending the defence budget more efficiently and practically.

Who said anything about ruling the waves Comstock?Why do you confuse the defence of Britain and our interests with that?
Many Conservatives including me vehemently opposed and still oppose the Iraq war.
We may have to fight for oil Comstock, I certainly hope we don't but we may. To fail to plan for that is naive at best but really criminally foolish.

Comstock: We might need to fight more wars for cheap oil in the future. We might need to take pre-emptive action against an enemy threat in the future. We might want to intervene to prevent genocide in the future. We might want to do lots of things in the future but we might not be able to do anything at all at any time if we haven't started assembling the resources in the present.

The very fact that some unstable and/or unsavoury regimes are spending more of their GDP on Defence than we are surely underlines the point that we need to start spending more ourselves in order to be able to face any future threat. If a potentially hostile nation spends more, we need to review our own spending and increase it where necessary.

The USA, France and Australia understand this. By the way they appear in the list of countries that you dismiss so readily.

OSAMA: My brothers, we stand on the brink of greatness. Everywhere the accursed infidel [pause to spit] is on the retreat. Now we shall unfurl our hordes and trample their foul blasphemous democratic ways into the dust!

KHALED: Sorry, boss. No can do. Don't you know that the British have begun to implement a private sector financed overhaul of their state school infrastructure? And that they've developed a new flexible modular form of AS examination which allows students to combine academic topics like particle physics with more vocational subjects such as pole dancing?

MUSTAFA: The accursed crusader English also have begun to align their income tax and national insurance systems. That's got my boys really worried. None of them want to take on the Brits any more.

JAMAL: And have you seen their working family tax credit arrangements, which requires employers to take on the compliance burden of the welfare state? Ach! Truly these perfidious devils are invincible.

JACK STONE: The problem you've got, Osama, is that you're only talking to your core vote and you're not addressing the real priorities. Only with a newer, younger, more modern leadership.....etc etc

William, LOL, no I can't! I'm trying to think of an example where a fire was prevented by the ambulance service. Could you help me?

Lest you misunderstand, my message is simple: we spend about the right amount, but we could spend it better.

... most of those countries do have greater national security concerns ...

DrFoxNews, exactly!

The very fact that some unstable and/or unsavoury regimes are spending more of their GDP on Defence than we are surely underlines the point that we need to start spending more ourselves ...

Simon, no. The defence spending figures show us three not particularly surprising things: 1) if your neighbours hate you, you need to spend; 2) if you’ve got oil, you need to spend; 3) unsavoury regimes are skint.

I agree with Sean, Mark: your pretty selective list of countries with widely differing circumstances doesn't tell us whether we need to spend more or less on defence ourselves. From what I can see in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention appalling military housing and medical facilities, the answer is yes.

Good to see Margeret on the Guillotine, the authentic voice of Blue Labour-cum-CND, telling us that even more money must be squandered on skoolsnospitals to show that the Tories have "changed". Some people seem determined to refight the 1997 General Election.

There is an element here of the same flawed paradigm here that affected the thinking on the NHS - that increased spending will necessarily cure all ills.

However, as with the NHS, there are structural problems within the MoD which suggest that extra spending would not necessarily lead to more capability or more of the right sort of capability. Giving more money in this context is rather like giving an alchoholic more money because he has spent the housekeeping on booze.

Alongside any considerations of funding, therefore, there needs to be some serious thought as to what we actually need in terms of capabilities and how to get value for money in achieving them.

Elsewhere, by way of example, there is an interesting debate going on about the provision of close air support in Afghanistan. At the moment, the Harrier is used, as £37,000 per hour operating costs. The debate centres on whether a ground attack version of the Tucano could do the same (or even better) job for £5,000 per hour.

There are many other examples (such as with helo ops) which suggest that we could actually improve capabilities for considerably less expenditure than at present.

It seems to me, therefore, that the debate needs to be more sophisticated than it is at present, or we end up spending more money and not getting the results.

OSAMA: My brothers, we stand on the brink of greatness. Everywhere the accursed infidel [pause to spit] is on the retreat. Now we shall unfurl our hordes and trample their foul blasphemous democratic ways into the dust!

KHALED: Sorry, boss. No can do. Don't you know the British are investing billions in submarines equipped with nuclear missiles? And they've [cough] invested even more introducing democracy and stability to Iraq, fiendishly thwarting our brethren in the holy jihad!

LIAM FOX: The Brits astutely recognise that increasing spending on such wise ventures must be prioritised over investing in fighting crime and raising standards in schools and hospitals.

....except DrFoxNews, that standards have fallen in schools and hospitals over the last ten years, and neither has exactly lacked money. Go on, make me laugh, tell me that it will be so very different once the Tories are in control.

William, I wish I was able to match the humour that you’ve cleverly used to keep the audience on side while masking the argument with red herrings. Fortunately the facts speak for themselves: we are surrounded by allies yet are the 5th largest defence spender in the world. If that level of spending is not enough, it signals problems with our spending decisions and foreign policy, not the size of our wallet.

Michael, my list was only selective in so far as it is the countries that spend a greater percentage of GDP than us. I wanted to show that it’s more sensible to judge spending in absolute terms, rather than aiming for a fixed percentage of a variable amount. Our defence commitments don’t vary according to whether our economy is doing well or badly.

The problems in education and health are proof positive that greater spending will not fix the problems. The good doctor does like to bark up the wrong tree.

....except DrFoxNews, that standards have fallen in schools and hospitals over the last ten years, and neither has exactly lacked money. - Michael McGowan

Best give them up as a lost cause then, instead of throwing more money into that black hole in order to try and rectify those falling standards. At least there'll be more money to spend on the grand folly of nuclear weapons that can't/won't be used to tackle the genuine threats that this country faces.

Go on, make me laugh, tell me that it will be so very different once the Tories are in control. - Michael McGowan

Well it clearly won't be if the good Doctor has anything to do with it.

Comstock!!! Check your geography before you have a go at me! Afganistan is at 65degrees East. I'd better put the other co-ordinate in to help you. 33degrees North. Now, is that better?By the way, Iran's co-ordinates are 53East, and Iraq 44East. That to my poor fevered brain,(in your nulab estimation, that is) makes it look like the yellow men from the east are having a go at us!

We may have to fight for oil Comstock, I certainly hope we don't but we may

We might need to fight more wars for cheap oil in the future.

Thank you for your honesty, William and Malcolm

Now, how much have the last two wars for cheap oil cost?

If the money had been spent on uprgrading our vehicle fleet to electricity, reopening our coal mines and expanding our nuclear capacity whilst also building decent public transport, no further wars for oil would be needed, surely?

The number of human beings on here (and in the country in general it has to be said) who want to spend more money on projects that have no useful purpose other than to kill or injure other human beings is frankly disgusting.

Mark, I agree that aiming for a fixed percentage in and of itself makes little sense....although there does seem to be a lack of resource in the defence budget. Jon Gale has it about right.

DrFoxNews, how throwing more money at skoolsnospitals is going to raise standards in these politically-driven monoilths is beyond me. Also interesting to see that your part of the Tory Party now believes in unilateral nuclear disarmament.....just as a bunch of rogue states have acquired/are about to acquire the bomb. But then your part of the Tory Party fought the 1935 election on a platform of cutting ddefence spending.

Michael (and William, Sean and Malcolm), brandishing the 1930s card at anybody advocating a realistic reappraisal of British foreign and security policy to reflect modern geopolitical reality - rather than nostalgic pretensions about being a major global player - with a sensible defence budget and strategy does not constitute a convincing argument on your part.

As for your point about throwing money at schools and hospitals, I refer you to my earlier point about managing investment better across all sectors.

It isn't that people don't care about education and health, but do care about defence. Rather, people recognise that billions have been poured into education and health - and therefore the case for pouring more billions in again is rather weak. Defence, on the other hand has been starved of cash, whilst embarking on ventures in Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and consequently being massively overstretched with no sign of a let-up any time soon.

It is though quite amusing to see contibutors here call for a doubling of defence spending (that would mean finding another £32bn, equal to 6% of all government spending), whilst no doubt being horrified at the notion that an incoming Conservative government might not start slashing taxes left right and centre. You cannot have your cake and eat it.

Who is brandishing the 1930's card or having nostalgic pretensions of being a major global player Drfoxnews? Do grow up! If you're going to take part in the debate at least read what is being written.
I can assure you that planning for the defence of our country's energy supply is a very real consideration within the MOD.
Why not let us have your views about what constitutes a sensible defence budget and strategy or are quite happy to continue to confine yourself to making snide remarks about Liam Fox?
Comstock, your last few posts are risible, are you being serious?

Well, I'm certainly not keen to see defence spending rise to 6% of GDP. 3 - 3.5% would be about right. What I would like is to know that when British soldiers go into battle, they'll be adequately equipped, and that we have a navy that's capable to doing more than fishery protection round the British Isles. That means spending a bit more on defence, without having to build up huge forces.

"DrFoxNews":brandishing the 1930s card at anybody advocating a realistic reappraisal of British foreign and security policy to reflect modern geopolitical reality - rather than nostalgic pretensions about being a major global player - with a sensible defence budget and strategy does not constitute a convincing argument on your part.

Oh dear. There's nothing so old-fashioned and backward-looking as a 'realist' who wants to attack 'nostalgia'. We aren't in the 1970s anymore; we aren't a declining and crummy little socialist island. We're doing fairly well - so well, in fact, that not even a Labour Govmt has dented the overall position too much (altho' query for how much longer).

Can't speak for Sean, Michael or Malcolm but the reason I was 'brandishing the 1930s card' was to make the extremely convincing arguments that (a) it's not a good idea to let the state of your armed forces decline over time; (b) peace is always a better time to re-equip your armed forces than during a war; (c) well-meaning niceness tends not to deter enemies. I'm also rather amused at the people posting here who seem to claim that we don't have any enemies at the moment.

Personally, I have no 'nostalgic pretensions about being a major global player' - if anything, my complaint is that we are under-funding our global commitments at present. The short-term solution would be to either cut the commitments or increase the funding; but that does not address the real fundamental issues.

I'm not averse to 'a realistic reappraisal of British foreign and security policy to reflect modern geopolitical reality'. I'm not convinced anyone is providing one.

The 4th/5th economy in the world, and one which is rather heavily dependent on international trade/services, is forced to adopt a more global policy. We'd probably agree that the problem at present is trying to get what are still more or Cold War armed forces in shape for modern wars. Refusing to modernise those forces or refusing to fight modern wars doesn't really get you there.

Percentages of GDP are a poor yardstick. Hitler spent 40% GDP on the military and still lost the war because production was inefficient and no 24-hour working as in Britain.

What matters is what it takes to equip to meet objectives. Not to set objectives for which the military is not equipped as Blair did.

Much of the Defence Spending increase would be to train, to modernise equipment which would in itself reduce maintenance costs. We have huge sums committed from 1997 to Eurofighter which Labour made immune from spending cuts in 1997 to please the TGWU members.

We had a capital levy imposed on Defence stockpiles which is why the MoD sold off inventories to cut the Treasury asset-tax and shortages of boots, vehicles and ammunition appeared.

We cannot ramp up Defence Spending rapidly as that too produces waste as under Reagan - and as has occurred under Labour in Health and Education and Tax Credits.....it needs to be steady-state increases not splurges

Brown will announce spending cuts in his Comprehensive Spending Review

Who is brandishing the 1930's card or having nostalgic pretensions of being a major global player Drfoxnews? Do grow up! If you're going to take part in the debate at least read what is being written. - Malcolm

Malcolm, I do apologise. It must have been an impostor who opined I'd always believed that the Conservative party stood for the strong defence of our country and that we as a party had learned from the mistakes of Baldwin/Chamberlain at 10.39.

For what it's worth, I agree with your point that energy security is an important issue and needs to be a key consideration in British foreign and security policy, along with the threat posed by international terrorism.

However, it is time to face up to the fact that the United Kingdom is little more than a regional power these days, fortunate enough to be surrounded by stable, prosperous and (most importantly) friendly neighbours with no conceivable threat of war on the doorstep, much unlike the 1930s, when the UK was more of a global player and was faced with a dangerously unstable and politically turbulent situation across the Channel, which is why citing British FSP failures from the 1930s in relation to contemporary circumstances simply won't wash.

In light of contemporary circumstances and the future threats the UK is likely to face, does the British government need to waste billions on a nuclear 'deterrent' that it cannot and will not use? Does the British government need to throw away even more money on foreign policy misadventures like Iraq? In short, does the British government need to have the fifth-highest defence budget in the world, when it could be investing in fighting crime and raising standards in education and health instead? My answer to all these questions is a resounding no.

Gordon Brown will probably try at the next election what Bush did successfully when he got re-elected and try to use defence and secuurity as a means to frighten the people into re-electing Labour.
If David Cameron went down the path many on this site advocate of increased defence spending at the expense many seem to favour of cuts in health and education you will hand Gordon an open goal and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
The right in this party really do seem to have there heads up there backsides most of the time!

Let's demolish straw man number one. The British Government doesn't need to cut the defence budget in order to reduce crime. It simply needs to enforce a few of the hundreds of criminal laws enacted in recent decades. To do so, it needs to make the police accountable to the public not politicians. Ditto schools. Ditto the health service. None of that requires more money on top of the umpteen billions lavished on public services since 1997.

No one in this blog hankers after Victorian imperial glory. Yet it is isolationist nonsense to suggest that we can take defence for granted in a world where nuclear proliferation is rife; international terrorism is a curse; weapons delivery systems can travel thousands of miles with pinpoint accuracy and where two totalitarian superpowers are increasingly challenging the US, especially over energy supplies. Given the state of 1930's military technology, the appeasement and isolationism of the 1930's actually makes more sense than the approach DrFoxNews advocates for 2007.

Apologies Drfoxnews you're right, I did mention Baldwin/Chamberlain, sorry.
Agree with you about Iraq , not about the rest.So if you agree that energy security and terrorism is a big problem for Britain what do you think our strategy and defence budget should be?

Well we all know what your defence "policy" would be, Jack. You have told us many times that we should "talk to" our enemies, whether they be the IRA, Al-Qaeda or the Taleban. At least Marshal Petain tried the military option before opting for appeasement. Your imagination doesn't stretch that far.

Where's the threat???
Any country with major military forces is a threat, every part of British territory is potentially somewhere that could be under attack and the UK has an international responsibility to help allies and help people under threat of genocide from sinister regimes - an apparent ally can turn rapidly into an enemy and it can't be assumed that any particular state in the world can be relied upon to support the UK in any given conflict. A new Russian or US leader and who knows? For whatever reason they could be hostile.

It's not a matter of how much other countries are spending in GDP but rather up to what amount it is reasonable to spend in peacetime and how powerful overseas militarys are - a state like the US or China can get away with spending smaller amounts as a percentage of GDP because with their huge economies the amount for any given percentage spent will be bigger, this will soon be the case with India too. China is going to be the world superpower with India probably a close second, the USA the third military power - it's only a matter of time.

Yes this shows Conservative instincts. Defence and law & order are the basic and most important functions of the state.

Interesting that the percentage who want more spending on railways and public transport is nearly equal to homeland security. Perhaps surprising, unless some felt that homeland security means ID cards and other measures that repress the law-abiding.

As for railways and public transport, perhaps the importance of this lies in energy security as well as global warming. To me, it seems crucially important to seek to be as self-sufficient as possible for energy and not dependent on foreign imports (then it won't be necessary to go to war for oil). Perhaps electric trains and trams, and battery operated road vehicles are the future.

Let us sincerely hope that under a tory government the MoD will be exactly that: a Ministry of Defence and not, as has been the case for the last few years, an underfunded ministry trying to support our armed forces in a belligerent capacity.

Because of that crucial error of judgment, huge sums will have to be spent over many years to come on defending the nation from terrorism.

The current levels of spending on education and the NHS (which, to be fair, the Blair/Brown duumvirate increased significantly) should be maintained in real terms but not further increased.

What we need to do is introduce real reforms into both to make them much more effective and thus give taxpayers far better value for money.

In terms of the NHS I think we may have to spend more if life expectancy increases further or if more becomes technically possible (as it surely will)
Education and Health spending have already been increased to absurd levels, people are living longer but people are mostly healthier as well - take action to reduce hypochondria, encourage people to take more responsibility for their own health and lifestyle, and extending charging for drugs and services in the NHS and services in schools in order to raise more money. Low Interest Education and Medical Loans repayable in the same sort of wat as Student Loans could make up some shortfall in funding, cross subsidisation of free services by charges additionally is used in parts of South Asia and South East Asia - In India and Malaysia charging fees for organ transplants, the possibility of allowing people to go to the front of queues if they pay - heck, food isn't free and that's an essential item.

You see, YAA this is where I feel the fundamental difference is between myself and many people on this blog. It actually isn't that I support the red 'team' and most people support the blue 'team', it's that I fundamentally believe ideas like charging fees for organ transplants, the possibility of allowing people to go to the front of queues if they pay is wrong and inhumane. Immoral even.

Surely health is the great leveller, and we should all be equal, just as we are all equal before the law. If a fellow needs a transplant it is surely our moral duty to help him whether he is duke or dustman. The ideals of Bevan may be unfashionable but I believe they are as important as ever.

Oh and it may be the case that food isn't free and that's an essential item. but again, if a fellow is starving because he cannot work, we give him money to buy food. (yes I know some people abuse this and I condemn that).

People have devoted their lives to fighting for these rights- lets not p*ss them away to save a few bob eh?

In light of contemporary circumstances and the future threats the UK is likely to face, does the British government need to waste billions on a nuclear 'deterrent' that it cannot and will not use?

Do you know the lottery numbers for next Saturday ?

You seem to have such certainty about the future I thought you could offer money-making tips.

Future threats ? Until 1914 Britain had never fought Germany, it had in fact been our ally and Prussia had been subsidised by Britain under Frederick The Great, and had saved Wellington at Waterloo.

Until 1914 France had never been our ally, nor had Russia.

Howe we got into the situation of allying ourselves with the French Republic against the cousin of George V is unclear, but presumably noone in Britain had considered the possibility.

Considering Britain had very good relations with Germany throughout the 1920s, it seems remarkable that Hitler who wanted an alliance with Britain and war with the USSR ended up with exactly the opposite situation.

I do not see any historical basis for believing that foreign policy is predictable, and I think those who believe they can extrapolate from today to predict tomorrow are delusional

Of course we need to spend enough money do have a creditable way of defending the country. What we ought not to do is to keep on pretending we are an important world power just so prime ministers can flounce about the world looking important. This costs us more money than we can afford, costs the lives of people we do not need to lose and makes us a target in our own land.

fundamental misunderstanding of economics here.
An example: China's defence spending is low because it can
pay a soldier pennies, build weaponry for pennies, copy current technology for a fraction of the research and development costs of next generation technology. The result? A bog standard armed force with 100million men under arms.
Scared? You should be. IT IS THE EXCHANGE RATES STUPID!
I've chosen China as an example, but it's a general example. The point is you cannot compare the defence spending of different countries, it doesn't work. YOU HAVE TO COMPARE THE FIGHTING CAPACITY, AND DECIDE WHO WE HAVE TO BEAT AND HOW FAST. You are always challenged by several enemies at A time if you have several enemies at THE time.
The US, with its current huge budget, can't even take on Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Syria at the same time. This should be a basic defence requirement. When does anyone ever fight in one single country in a serious situation? If they are not spending enough, are we?
Basically, the budget has to be tripled.

Final thought from me on this.... I hope everyone who wants this higher defence spending is willing to put themselves (or their children/granchildren) forward to die in the wars we are going to spend it on?

You can be such a half wit Comstock. The whole idea of increased defence spending is that with a credible military force potential enemies are less willing to attack us or our interests and therefore on balance we and our children and our grandchildren will be safer. This unfortunately does not apply when you have an egomaniac as a PM who believes he will generate more popularity for himself by sending our young men to die in unecessary wars. But then you voted for him didn't you?

Although I am for increased defence spending, I would first of all like to see a Foreign Policy taking into account what we want the UK's position in the world to be and which considers whether our membership of the EU is a valid option on grounds of national defence and internal security. Once we have such a Foreign Policy, we could then support it with a value-for-money Defence Strategy. It might then be easier, for example, to put Iraq into context.